Promoter

I guess historians will have a lot to work with in summarizing the second biggest era. I still say the 80's(now called Federation years) was bigger for various reasons. Anyways, great responses from all and it's interesting to see the viewpoints. All valid points imo. The one that kind of stood out which probably will get overlooked nowadays, but grow over time is Bret Hart's involvement in changing wrestling. Pythagoras made a really great point that Mr. Mcmahon and Austin were built through Bret Hart and it is also debatable about HBK in terms of the new attitude era. Look at it like this. Austin makes his Austin 3:16 speech at KOR(which is another story in itself because we know HHH was suppose to win that year, so what would have happened if Austin didn't play off Jake to make the catchphrase of a generation?). Austin then is set up to goad Bret Hart back into the wwf. Nice angle by Vince because of Bret had jumped to wcw(another timeline changing event if it had happened) Austin would just call him a coward. Bret comes back to face Austin at SS 96 and HBK's face champ run comes to an end with Sid is cheered for winning by heel tactics. Bret and Austin continue at Mania 13 when it was suppose to be HBK/Hart. That changes history as well. However, that "lost my smile" scenario only intensified the Bret/HBK angle. HBK becomes more edgy in his character playing off Bret Hart's old school babyface morals(look at the video package at Survivor Series). That feud gets more heat and build as the match doesn't happen at KOR 97 either. Basically, by design or not Bret and HBK got the Hogan/Sting build up. Now, take Bret Hart out of the equation and where or how would wwe have gone in terms of building HBK and Austin? Vince more than got his money's worth out of that Bret contract in retrospect and he got rid of him at the right moment too(although a Bret/Austin title feud was money imo). The Survivor Series in Montreal was the climax of the wwe's hottest feud up until that time excluding anything from the 80's era such as Hogan/Savage. WCW saw how big it was and copied it for Hogan/Sting by putting Bret into the mix for Starrcade.

He's like a little cocka-roach that won't disappear hiding in the corner where people forget only to resurface

This is spin-off from the WWE PG 13 thread. Since the wwe officially announced doing this in the last few months I was wondering how long things would take for it to hit into high gear. So, I go back in time to the last real era philosophy that clicked with fans worldwide. What would you consider were the events that shaped the Attitude Era and what was the timeline that started everything? The official landmark event of Attitude Era acknowledged by wwe. I think it should be noted that there is debate on when the change came into effect. I think people overlook sometimes that the wwf began their adult themed philosophy back in 1995. Remember RAW magazine for the mature wrestling fan? It's very arguable that the storyline of Diesel shedding his corporate image the night after Survivor Series 1995 was the beginning. Also, the character of Goldust's debut at Survivor Series 1995 was also a change in direction(although there was Adorable Adrian Adonis before in the wwf). The wwf was still a bit in its "new generation campaign" that was not really taking off too well with the masses. The following ppv show had Bret Hart vs. British Bulldog and it was the first signs of blading old school style was aired when Bret was in a pool of blood. The wwf didn't make it OFFICIAL until Survivor Series 1997 with "Attitude" commercials that aired on the ppv of "you think I'm not an athlete? Try lacing up my boots". To the mainstream masses it was OFFICIAL at WrestleMania 14 off the hype of Mike Tyson. Austin's speech at KOR 96 was the wwf's Hulk Hogan heel turn interview at Bash at the Beach in that fans saw a new type of interview that was more shoot-ish(worked shoots coming to age after perhaps the pioneer Brian Pillman).

C/S They could just make it less "programmed" for a start.

it's January 8th

Politics at it's best. Yes indeed, BUT suppose they are protecting Beth? You can't job Beth to her. She's the new Chyna in terms of dominating. Okay, I don't believe that theory either

I thought Hogan would be in the top ten. The night Hogan won the Rumble for America because Sgt. Slaughter won the wwf title. Hulk Hogan is a 2 time winner. Also, I like the idea of Ted Dibiase's son defeating Taker at Mania to tie it into the debut of the Taker. If they are planning this(which is spoiled now for online fans although it still seems highly unlikely) they need to really build him now. I agree with mellowblissful about expecting him to live up to all this hype though so soon because I don't see it. If they could do it more power to them.

I have a feeling that if Austin doesn't wrestle, he'll be the referee for Cena/Orton. I would not be surprised if Austin is added to the JBL/HBK feud actually. I think that's more likely if Cena/Orton and JBL/HBK are the matches.

You have a point, but usually it increases the match heat as fans get behind their own. Texas crowds also seem to get really hot. I remember that huge match on raw a few years back with I think Rock, Benoit, Rikishi and so on against Triple H and so on(memory is hazy on the wrestlers) and the crowd was red hot. Another example is Canadian Stampede in Bret and Owen's hometown. The crowd heat was off the chain and it made most of the matches better since fans were hot to see their the crowd favorites from their own backyard. The wwe has always made it known UT is from Death Valley Texas. With all that said, after RAW this week I can see it building to JBL/HBK.

That's the thing. I'm not actually saying the wwf should be doing some of that stuff 10 years ago. In truth, I think the wwe started to suck in 1999. They put on a better product in 2000 and 2001. 1997-1998 wwf is a different story though. I think they are screwing up the characters in consistency more than anything else. Let me explain. In the 80's Hulk Hogan was indeed the only REAL mainstream draw in the 80's. I have read backlog stories(from Meltzer) about NBC and other companies giving Vince Mcmahon business simply because of the star and drawing power of Hogan. However, the company did have legitimate superstars booked properly that helped Hogan too. Roddy Piper is an example for the original Mania. As Piper stated a lot of people backed Hogan simply because Piper was such a great heel. Then the turning heel of Andre The Giant was booked brilliantly as well. They created engaging angles. It doesn't only fall on the bookers/writers though to be fair. The wrestlers need to pull it off too with great execution. Steve Austin and The Rock are also prime examples of guys being booked properly and executing. Let's not forget how many fans were praying Vince did not turn Austin into a vanilla babyface. They even touched upon this in an interview between Vince and Austin on RAW where Austin told Vince he's not a good guy or bad guy, he's Stone Cold Steve Austin. They were letting us know they were listening to the fans. Why did they do this? Because wcw was kicking their asses in the ratings and did not want to turn fans off. They did the same thing with The Rock too. They changed the format of what the top babyface could or should be for the company. Now let's take the same situation and apply it to John Cena. The guy was connecting with the audience on Smackdown much more than when he was on RAW imo. Why? The writers from that show let Cena be Cena. He wore the same clothes as the majority of the 18-35 demographic and the kids thought he was Mr. Cool. He made his rap cd's and he was appearing on BET Shows as well. Cena seemed genuine to the audience which is a key. I think one of the reasons Hogan started to fall in popularity at the beginning of the 90's was the he started to look too phony(with all the steroid allegations as well). He was starting to get boos(remember the Sid situation at the Rumble?). Vince did not pay attention to what was happening and he wrote Hogan off, but in truth Hogan still had legs if Vince had thought out the box as Bischoff did and turned Hogan heel then(in the long run it was better it happened with the nwo though). They even paid attention to the complaints of fans who said Cena needed to step his game up in the ring. So, what did they do? Give him credibility by going over HHH whom everyone and their mother thought was a sure bet to regain the title from Cena. Look at the heat Cena had in that match amongst the different fans. For whatever reason once Cena came out with the movie The Marine they went straight back to the cookie cutter babyface role for their champions that got played out since the early 90's. I don't think Cena is that bad right now to be honest, but what made people gravitate toward him like 2-3 years ago is missing. He is just there now off his past popularity. Compare Cena to how HHH is booked. They saw the heel HHH was at the point of being a respectable babyface because of his accomplishments and aren't forcing fans NOT to back him. So what do they do? Bring back DX(I agree with the core problems mentioned by denverpunk) to appease the fans who want to cheer him. However, they have not taken away any of the badass nature of HHH that made fans respect him that led to the cheers. I ask if they know not to do certain things with certain wrestlers then there must be another reason why they are doing things the way they are. HHH is family and is always going to be there, so they book him in that fashion imo. However, they should be doing this with everyone else in the long term big picture. Batista/UT's feud is another example. I got no problem with the mutual respect angle, but what happened to the Batista fans backed when he feuded HHH? He had the same respect thing there, but he didn't back down or lose his sly fox ways to outsmart the bigger name. They have just turned Batista into another cookie cutter babyface and maybe it has to do with them catering to the smaller kids. However, they are just taking away aspects to why kids are drawn to the characters in the first place. I don't even want to get into MVP. I dug the storyline, but now where the hell is it going? Too many storylines just go round and round and seems to go nowhere or when they do the outcome is not that thrilling. MVP should have turned shit around already imo to make people actually care. JBL/HBK is another good example of a good storyline idea, but giving it to the wrong guys to execute. I think fans may have bought MVP in the role much easier and the outcome could lead to MVP being a bigger face because the fans wanted to cheer the guy anyways. Right now who wants to cheer a loser? If they are catering to kids they have to think how kids would see it. Good points about bringing up the internet because honestly I think the wwe would not have made the comeback they did without the fans of the IWC. I say this because when the net was at its peak the wwe would see what fans liked and didn't like and would cater to it. Not that should do this for everything, but for the general big picture. They changed this philosophy and pretty much shrunk that part of the fanbase as well. When they had wcw beat they stopped doing the things that helped turn them around. I have no doubt in my mind that someone like Foley got the belt strictly off the love he was getting from online fans saying he deserved at least a token title run for bumping the way he did for Hell in the Cell. I also think some of the wrestlers are trying too hard. Miz for example. When I watch him and Morrison I can't help but think they are trying to be a mix of Edge/Christian and the New Age Outlaws. Now it's fine to do that, but put your own spin on it. With the new philosophy they are coming off like a lite version of both those teams. I also think the wwe has completely lost the bullseye marketing approach of the wrestlers being themselves turned up to 100 in the arena. More than anything else fans like the stars to seem genuine and not manufactured to make them boo or cheer them which they are doing in catering to little kids ONLY. Now they are always exception to this, but it's not the rule. Look at the biggest stars that wrestling has made and how genuine they seemed to the audience. These are my examples of stars connecting with audiences. Hulk Hogan the bigger than life wrestler that appeared in Rocky III. The fans were ripped off seeing him get the title in the AWA, so when he shows up in the wwf fans were more than ready for him to wipe out the Iron Sheik who robbed Bob Backlund who also seemed genuine in character. He was the people's champ and him wearing the belt looked like it was apart of him. Andre The Giant was loveable to kids and fans everywhere. He turns heel because of jealousy towards Hogan and wanting to be champion. The feud does monster business just as the Hogan/Orndorff feud before. Hogan never lost the title legitimately, so fans even though they loved Savage would back Hogan when they clashed. The storyline also seemed genuine and very plausible with the characters involved. Hogan lost steam in 1990 as Warrior was the new hot babyface(although Hogan was still more popular imo). Anyways, Hogan started to seem less genuine to the audience since Warrior was doing the similar schtick which in turn hurt Warrior. The wwf then turns all their top stars into cartoons instead of more acceptable genuine stars such as Macho King, Polka Dot Dusty Rhodes, The Genius, etc. They continued that approach with the same results and explained that wrestling would no longer big as big as it was. In 1994 or so they started focusing more on wrestling at the top, but that was more of a coincident since the top guys just happened to be the best workers. Bret/Owen was said to do the best business since Hogan was on top at house shows. I wonder why Vince? Bret seemed genuine. Over in wcw Hogan was getting lukewarm responses becase he was in the more workrate heavy fanbase of wcw/nwa. Not only that his act was stale and did not seem genuine. Once Hogan acknowledged the real world and addressed the issues in his heel turn interview at the Bash it was the poweder keg the fans wanted to see and it connected because Hogan now seemed more genuine. The wwf was still doing the same thing with their babyfaces imo. That is one reason why Austin took off in his feud with Bret. Austin seemed more genuine. When Bret turned heel in America and face everywhere(stroke of genius that has yet to be duplicated) else he became more genuine as well. They kept booking the stars like that in Rock, Foley(revealing the 3 faces of Foley), Undertaker(he was no longer a goody two shoes and became more dark), and HBK(they scrapped that boyhood dream snore for more of the HBK who turned on Marty Jannetty with DX HBK). They also started to NOT insult the audience by acknowledging things like the MSG incident and trying to connect it in a sly way to the NWO. Now in the characters they have now can we really say any of them are being genuine with the exception of perhaps HBK(not really so with the current stoyline either) and HHH? It's not to say that they WERE'NT doing this before either because they acknowledged things like Cena's tweener heat and Cena responded on the mic abou it. Now they just have Cena ignore things and go against the character he had. I understand the approach to keep kids buying the merchandise, but there must be a way for a happy medium. ---------------------------------------- BTW. I forgot all about PG 13 :lol: :lol: You guys are hilarious.

If they did that, they could theoretically pull off an Undertaker/John Cena match. That would be a monumental match, but are you asking for a heel turn for Cena? That has Rock/Austin written all over it in that the face of the company(who wants to be PG 13) would be booed out of Texas. I doubt they would book this with their style of booking now. In 2005-6, I think they would have possibly done it. Cena winning is instant heel heat no matter what and it being the 25th anniversary and in Texas?

I haven't been online as much as I use to and by the looks of how slow the IWC has become it doesn't look like I'm the only one. What I'm asking here seriously is the wwe's approach to cater to kids in hopes of having those kids grow into adults and being fans. I think this a flawed idea that may derail the company from being the best it could be. I understand where they are coming from because they are basing this on Hulk Hogan's fans of the 80's returning in the 90's when Hogan turned heel. Vince is missing some elements on why wrestling resurrected in the 90's and why it died a slow death post WM 6. I think it all had to with the FORMAT. If we look at how wrestling evolved from January 23, 1984 until let's say WrestleMania XX. IMO, wrestling grew to great heights until Vince started to insult his audience. The characters and storylines til around WM 3 you seen an emphasis on an exhibition with athletes competing in "the world of professional wrestling" where "Hogan was the greatest professional athlete in the world today". The wwf got press and media attention that wasn't seen before. Over in the NWA and AWA they had the same sporting approach. The difference between them and the wwf though was the major league presentation. The wwf would have "Updates", "Superstars", mainstream interviews, and celebrities. It was about making it acceptable to watch. For some reason, Vince went to the "Family Entertainment" approach in 1990(which started in 1988 as they turned back on old school by releasing those best of title series videtapes) and had a lot more cartoon characters and more of a Walt Disney approach. The wwf went down the tubes because it got watered down. WCW tried the opposite. Then in the mid 90's came and Eric Bischoff changed a lot of the played out things such as jobber matches that everybody and their mother could predict. He went live for the "A" show. Even that did not bring in the change because although he had the big stars of the 80's what he did was simply just a rehash of storylines and characters. What brought wcw and wrestling out of the doldrums was shedding the cartoon characters and becoming more realistic and reality based in storylines. It became more edgy. Vince followed suit in shaping raw more like nitro. Vince followed that up by beefing up his roster and increasing the match quality, while wcw did not fix the holes that fans were stating were there. Right now I think Vince Mcmahon is in cruise control because of no competition and even the competition within he was trying to promote to stop stagnation isn't there anymore. Their idea to fix this with more PG wrestling is exactly what the wwe doesn't need imo. Yes, the attitude era is over and realistically some of that stuff would simply not work anymore. However, it seems to me the wwe has dropped in keeping people's attention since about 2006 for various reasons imo. I think the idea to use kids now and having them for future adult fans is flawed simply because the wwe has an attitude problem in not taking criticism well. They have shown to have problems keeping adult fans and the reason being it doesn't take critique well. They rather go for new kid fans who won't judge the product, but the cycle will just continue. An example is the FORMAT of RAW and Smackdown basically. It has been the same since the major change in 1997(that's going on 12 years now). That is the same as having the format of WWF Superstars from 1986 and continuing it in 1988(which they did) expecting to grow the fanbase or to keep the fanbase. Another aspect financially the wwe won't do, but a lot of fans have complained about is all the ppv shows that all seem the same. Fans are asking for less to appreciate it more, but they are not listening. When they went with more ppv shows to counter wcw the fans kind of asked for it in that they wanted more ppv caliber shows and the fans paid for it. My point is the wwe has not learned how to keep adult fans without insulting their intelligence and the approach of targeting kids for a future fanbase is taking things for granted which is the core problem. Fans voiced their problems with certain characters and the wwe refused to fix the problems(Cena is an example as he got more heat as a tweener and "smackdown franchise"). I don't mind his in ring as others, but what they've done to his character is appalling. At least before he had serious heat from all types of fans. Now it's just kids they want him to get heat from(not even Hogan was THAT much kid friendly*just ask Jesse Ventura ). I believe the wrestling fans of the 80's and 90's and even earlier in the decade are still there, but they are just not watching for a various amount of reasons. When they connect with the audience they will come back(not all, but a big portion just like they did a decade ago). I know this was long, but I just wanted to show why I think the wwe is thinking short-sighted here.

Interesting. I actually like this idea and is not predictable in that you wouldn't expect to see this pairing at all how things are now. The predictable turn may be a problem, but if they do go harder with HBK being a willing ally to JBL people will want it to happen.

Tell me you don't honestly think that JBL should be in the main event of Wrestlemania 25. I like JBL and all, but COME ON. There is no reason whatsoever that the title match shouldn't be Cena vs. Orton, unless one of them ends up facing Austin instead. Don't discount JBL v HBK in the Battle for Texas. Throw in another two months of this storyline's slow burn, maybe a "Beat me and earn financial security for the rest of your life; lose and you retire, just like you retired Ric Flair: beaten, battered, and broke." stipulation and you have a respectable main event regardless of workrate. Vince is that you? Seriously, I wouldn't put it past them.

WOW! Got me feeling old over here. Doesn't feel THAT long. I forgot RAW use to be taped and so deep into the MNW too. Smackdown costs more than half a mill to produce? Damn!

Oh for sure it made the match entertaining and kayfabe wise historically having Backlund break the record made sense. However, the announcers could have played it up a bit more since the year before when Flair did it they made a bigger deal(although the title being on the line made it bigger regardless).

Not surprised that HBK wouldn't want to job, but in this scenario it seems unlikely since he couldn't actually wrestle or do physically demanding stuff. He would have to be delusional to think Vince would want a champion who can't wrestle(and remember his match at Mania 14 was his first match since the casket match back at Royal Rumble). Then to add that he never showed up in the company again for years after that night makes it kind of strange that UT would have to force him to job the title. The other times he dodged the title losses he was not injured with his back(unlike the "knee problem" where he made it known he was faking an injury by jumping on the knee at WM 13 AND making comments mockingly at the Slammys) and he wasn't avoiding a return job to a guy he hated in Bret Hart. Now, if Taker meant he had to make sure HBK would SHOW UP to do the job that's another story. HBK could have simply ditched the match altogether if he wanted to avoid jobbing although the pay day would go down the tubes(as well as his goodwill with Vince although we all know there were times he wanted to jump ship). Add the money and the injury to this whole thing and HBK refusing to do the job under the situation seems kind of out there even for HBK. However, the point is well taken about this being HBK though

I always questioned this story although I heard it straight from Taker's mouth on OTR. The reason being is HBK had a bad back. Why would he want to hold the title and not be able to wrestle? It doesn't make sense. His condition he had to lose the belt. You can tell in the match with Austin he was hurt. Yeah, he was all right the first few minutes but when he started bumping around, you could see how much pain he was in. Not to mention that was his last match for years too. HBK was in pain doing that angle on raw too. The one where HBK puts the title belt in Austin's face. Earlier in the show when HBK tried to do the sweet chin music he see him pulling himself to restrain his back. He was speaking like he was also on a higher politcal level than Hogan in that interview if I remember correctly and that's laughable since we know how easy Hogan returned and got the belt. Taker was trying to get across that he was the backstage leader in that interview and was talking shit imo. Russo has always said HBK was going to drop the belt. Russo is the one who wanted HBK to win alledgedly, but HBK and Vince said it was a stupid idea and plus he was injured.

I always questioned this story although I heard it straight from Taker's mouth on OTR. The reason being is HBK had a bad back. Why would he want to hold the title and not be able to wrestle? It doesn't make sense. His condition he had to lose the belt. You can tell in the match with Austin he was hurt. The WWE belt is the One Ring? huh?

I missed this show you guys watched with Flair talking about the factions, but I'm not surprised at Flair's attitude toward the NWO. I remember rumors back then saying Flair was pissed at Hall and Nash because they mocked the horsemen like how HHH mocked the corporation. Then we know the whole mess with Bischoff and Flair. Flair was more disposable in those days than the previous years and it pissed him off imo. It's true Hogan/Nash/Hall made wcw #1. What people also forget is the storyline that it was wwf invaders trying to takeover wcw in the monday night war. The majority of people LIKED the NWO and wanted them to wipe out wcw. THAT was the biggest problem imo, but they could have transitioned to Sting or Goldberg and pushed wcw more toward the end of 98 and 99. If Ric Flair wants to know how Vince would have booked him during his real hey day he needs to look no more further than the Hogan/Dibase feud. Dibase was Vince's answer to Flair imo when you look at the high profile and stylin characters.

I always questioned this story although I heard it straight from Taker's mouth on OTR. The reason being is HBK had a bad back. Why would he want to hold the title and not be able to wrestle? It doesn't make sense. His condition he had to lose the belt. You can tell in the match with Austin he was hurt.

I always took Backlund's story as Vince making sure a wcw/nwa guy and former champion didn't hold the rumble record. Backlund being the former champion and his past credentials in athletics made him an easy candidate to break the legendary NWA Champion Ric Flair record in Vince's mind imo. As for 95, I remember the Diesel/Bret match being very good actually. I haven't seen it for a long time though. The Rumble itself had a nice finish, but was terrible overall. I think it's worse than 99 actually.

That could make sense: Shawn vs. JBL and Taker vs. Umaga But still... this Wrestlemania is going to have to have a mega-money/epic moment match, and at the present moment... Shawn vs. Taker in Texas is at the top of the list. The wwe may see the scenario of Shawn v. JBL and Taker v. Umaga as the better one in that it's two matches. They could push the Texas thing with JBL/HBK too if they wanted. I don't want to give them any ideas, but if they must do JBL/HBK they could do the sell out Texan v. Wall Street guy in front of the crowd or even HBK selling out Texas and becoming Wall Street himself. I rather they just end the convoluted feud at No Way Out myself. Taker/HBK is a better fit for the environment and the event. If Austin comes back for the HOF along with Terry Funk you will get more Texas heat than JBL/HBK or UT/Umaga.

Thanks for the feedback

I agree Royal Rumble is the #2 show and SummerSlam has lost the spot. However, the wwe sees it as #2 because they book Mania to SummerSlam and SummerSlam to Mania most of the time for the long storylines and bigger feuds.